↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture for acute hordeolum

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acupuncture for acute hordeolum
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011075.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheng, Ke, Law, Andrew, Guo, Menghu, Wieland, L. Susan, Shen, Xueyong, Lao, Lixing, Ke Cheng, Andrew Law, Menghu Guo, L. Susan Wieland, Xueyong Shen, Lixing Lao

Abstract

Hordeolum is an acute, purulent inflammation of the eyelid margin usually caused by obstructed orifices of the sebaceous glands of the eyelid. The condition, which affects sebaceous glands internally or externally, is common. When the meibomian gland in the tarsal plate is affected, internal hordeolum occurs, while when the glands of Zeis or Moll associated with eyelash follicles are affected, external hordeolum, or stye occurs. The onset of hordeolum is usually self limited, and may resolve in about a week with spontaneous drainage of the abscess. When the condition is severe, it can spread to adjacent glands and tissues. Recurrences are very common. As long as an internal hordeolum remains unresolved, it can develop into a chalazion or generalized eyelid cellulitis. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medical therapy aimed to treat disease by using fine needles to stimulate specific points on the body. However, it is unclear if acupuncture is an effective and safe treatment for acute hordeolum. The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture to treat acute hordeolum compared with no treatment, sham acupuncture, or other active treatment. We also compared the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture plus another treatment with that treatment alone. We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS), three major Chinese databases, as well as clinical trial registers all through 7 June 2016. We reviewed the reference lists from potentially eligible studies to identify additional randomised clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of people diagnosed with acute internal or external hordeola. We included RCTs comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture or no treatment, other active treatments, or comparing acupuncture plus another treatment versus another treatment alone. We used standard methodological procedures used by Cochrane. We included 6 RCTs with a total of 531 participants from China. The mean age of the participants ranged from 18 to 28 years. Four RCTs included participants diagnosed with initial acute hordeolum with a duration of less than seven days; one RCT included participants diagnosed with initial acute hordeolum without specifying the duration; and one RCT included participants with recurrent acute hordeolum with a mean duration of 24 days. About 55% (291/531) of participants were women. Three RCTs included participants with either external or internal hordeolum; one RCT included participants with only external hordeolum; and two RCTs did not specify the type of hordeolum. Follow-up was no more than seven days after treatment in all included RCTs; no data were available for long-term outcomes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was low to very low, and we judged all RCTs to be at high or unclear risk of bias.Three RCTs compared acupuncture with conventional treatments. We did not pool the data from these RCTs because the conventional treatments were not similar among trials. Two trials showed that resolution of acute hordeolum was more likely in the acupuncture group when compared with topical antibiotics (1 RCT; 32 participants; risk ratio (RR) 3.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 9.70; low-certainty of evidence) or oral antibiotics plus warm compresses (1 RCT; 120 participants; RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.78; low-certainty of evidence). In the third trial, little or no difference in resolution of hordeolum was observed when acupuncture was compared with topical antibiotics plus warm compresses (1 RCT; 109 participants; RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; low-certainty of evidence). One RCT mentioned adverse outcomes, stating that there was no adverse event associated with acupuncture.Three RCTs compared acupuncture plus conventional treatments (two RCTs used topical antibiotics and warm compresses, one RCT used topical antibiotics only) versus the conventional treatments alone. One of the three RCTs, with very low-certainty evidence, did not report the resolution of acute hordeolum; however, it reported that acute hordeolum relief might be higher when acupuncture was combined with conventional treatments than with conventional treatments alone group (60 participants; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.00 to 3.23). Pooled analysis of the remaining two RCTs, with low-certainty evidence, estimated resolution of acute hordeolum was slightly higher in the combined treatment group compared with the conventional treatment alone group at 7-day follow-up (210 participants; RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.23; I(2) = 0%). None of the three RCTs reported adverse outcomes. Among the included RCTs, four participants, two from the acupuncture plus conventional treatments group and two from the conventional treatments alone group, withdrew due to exacerbation of symptoms. Low-certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture with or without conventional treatments may provide short-term benefits for treating acute hordeolum when compared with conventional treatments alone. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low mainly due to small sample sizes, inadequate allocation concealment, lack of masking of the outcome assessors, inadequate or unclear randomization method, and a high or unreported number of dropouts. All RCTs were conducted in China, which may limit their generalizability to non-Chinese populations.Because no RCTs included a valid sham acupuncture control, we cannot rule out a potential expectation/placebo effect associated with acupuncture. As resolution is based on clinical observation, the outcome could be influenced by the observer's knowledge of the assigned treatment. Adverse effects of acupuncture were reported sparsely in the included RCTs, and, when reported, were rare. RCTs with better methodology, longer follow-up, and which are conducted among other populations are warranted to provide more general evidence regarding the benefit of acupuncture to treat acute hordeolum.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 30%
Unspecified 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Unspecified 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#750,899
of 8,946,424 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,859
of 8,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,588
of 309,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,946,424 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.